National Toxics Network congratulates Mariann on receiving the award for ‘UN Gender Pioneer for Future Detoxified’. It is so well deserved. She is a tireless campaigner for a toxic-free future. Here’s the statement she made on receiving the award in Geneva May 3, 2017:

‘Throughout my life I have been committed to standing with and empowering vulnerable communities to defend themselves against big polluting industries and the governments that support them. After this last week, I believe we need this more than ever. Here in Geneva, we have seen some countries demand unjustified exemptions to continue to use very toxic, persistent and transboundary POPs, some for decades to come, without even the need for labelling and/or right to know. In effect, this COP has failed to ensure a ‘Detoxified Future.’ It is clearly apparent now that vulnerable communities; women, families, workers, cannot depend on the governments of the world to protect their health and human rights from the harm caused by toxic chemicals. So the pressure is now even greater for civil society to fight for a Toxic Free Future, to hold the polluting corporations and complicit government accountable and, most importantly, prevent the poisoning of our children and our future. This award hopefully will give many of us even more impetus to continue that fight.’

IPEN has released the findings of an investigation into the contamination of children’s toys with POPs chemicals which have been found to contaminate recycled plastics. Laboratory analysis of 95 Rubik’s cubes and 16 additional samples (including a thermo cup, hair clips, combs, headdresses, and children’s toys) from 26 countries in various regions found 100 samples (90%) contained OctaBDE at concentrations ranging from 1 to 1174 ppm. Forty-three samples (39%) contained OctaBDE at levels greater than 50 ppm – one of the LPCL proposed for PBDEs listed in the Stockholm Convention. One sample exceeded the higher proposed LPCL of 1000 ppm.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) have just released their Report – Perfluorinated Chemicals in Food. The Report on Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), and Perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS) provides new levels for drinking water and tolerable daily intakes (TDI). These levels will replace the very high interim levels set in the ’invitation only’ workshop held last year.

The figures released today will form the basis of discussions at the second ‘invitation only’ workshop to be held in Melbourne by the Victorian EPA 4-5 April 2017. Our requests for NGOs and/or members of civil society to be allowed to attend were refused.

The new FSANZ report repeats the Australian government’s statement that “there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse health effects in humans.” This is despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary including the findings of the UN POPs Review committee, the US EPA, Germany and many researchers.

In reviewing the figures it appears odd that for PFOS, FSANZ have adopted the same levels as the US EPA for both the PFOS tolerable daily intake (TDI 0.02ug/kg/bwday) and drinking water quality guidelines (0.07ug/L). Both are a substantial reduction on the interim TDI and drinking water guidelines.

But for PFOA, which has far more information on health impacts, FSANZ have set the TDI (0.16ug /kg bw/day) which is 8 times the new Australian PFOS level and at around 8 times the US EPA level. This is incomprehensible.

In September 2016, the UN POPs Review committee (of which Australia is a member) unanimously agreed “adverse health effects such as elevated cholesterol levels, altered reproductive /developmental effects, endocrine disruption, impaired neurodevelopment, as well as increased risk of cancer associated with PFOA exposure in humans …and that scientific data have demonstrated PFOA-mediated immunotoxicity, primarily suppression of antibody response, in human.”

Importantly, the US guidelines are for PFOS and PFOA combined. i.e., 0.07ug/L, demonstrating that the new Australian levels are substantially higher than those set by the USEPA, and that the TDI and drinking water quality values for PFOA remain very much higher than those guidelines set by the US EPA, Canada, New Jersey etc

It is positive though to see that for PFHxS, even though the information available is much less comprehensive than for the other two, they recommend using the PFOS TDI.

The aim of the PFAS Summit (i.e., PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFBS etc) is to develop a national management plan for PFAS. However, NGOs like ourselves and affected residence were not allowed to attend, other than for the three keynote speeches, which were delivered via the internet, or if you wished to fly to Melbourne for just three hours, you could attend in person for the morning’s session.

Ironically, the opening address acknowledged the success of Australia’s previous National Management Plans for other POPs chemicals (PCB, HCB, organochlorine pesticides), which were developed with full and effective participation of all stakeholders, including NGOs like ourselves, unions and local government.

The Summit’s first Keynote presentation from the US EPA was of interest, particularly for those who knew little about that PFAS issue, which was surprising as this was supposed to be a summit for experts and regulators. The presentation from the European regulator provided useful information, particularly about the growing problem of short chain PFAS.

The last presentation was given by a representative from the New Zealand branch of the international consulting firm, AURECON. Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd have major consultancy contracts with the Australian Department of Defence, responsible for PFAS contamination of many sites including Williamtown in NSW, Oakey in Queensland and other defence sites in NT and WA. During the 10-year period the contracts with 5 companies including Aurecon, are collectively worth more than AUD 9 billion (See http://www.aurecongroup.com/en/about/latest-news/2014/jul/department-of-defence-signing.aspx).

The potential conflict-of-interest was not acknowledged by the presenter or by the organisers of the summit. The Aurecon industry representative openly criticised the EU position and regulations and, his presentation included an inaccurate statement about the status of PFOA on the Stockholm Convention. PFOA is not yet listed on the Convention as it is still under assessment and whether there will be any exemptions is still under consideration. There were no presentations from civil society to counter this industry viewpoint.

NTN did all we could to ensure a more equitable representation at the summit but we were repeatedly told no NGO or member of an affected community would be allowed to participate in the following day and a half when the actual management plan for PFAS will be developed. As many of you know, NTN and our sister organisation IPEN, have participated in the UN and OECD working groups for PFOS and PFOA for over a decade.

We can only stress how concerned we are about the unrepresentative participation of yet another ‘closed shop’ meeting to consider Australia’s response to the PFAS.

Australia remains out of step with international standards

A reminder that while Australian authorities continue to claim that ““there is no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse health effects in humans”, in May 2016, after many years of assessment, the USEPA concluded:

Human epidemiology data report associations between PFOS exposure and high cholesterol, thyroid disease, immune suppression, and some reproductive and developmental parameters, including reduced fertility and fecundity. Although some human studies suggest an association with bladder, colon, and prostate cancer, the literature is inconsistent and some studies are confounded by failure to control for risk factors such as smoking.”[i]

Also in May 2016, after carefully examining the epidemiological literature, the German Human Biomonitoring Commission (HBM Commission) came to similar conclusions rating the detrimental effects in the following areas as well proven, relevant, and significantly associated with exposure to PFOA and/or PFOS:

Fertility and pregnancy such as increased time to wanted pregnancy, destosis and gestational diabetes, reduced weight of newborns at birth

“Thank you Madam Chair, my name is Mariann Lloyd-Smith, from the international public interest NGO, IPEN but I will also give this statement on behalf of numerous communities who have lost their health, homes and security due to this persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemical. Across USA, Sweden, Australia, China, Italy and others, PFOA has polluted communities and harmed residents’ health. Their story serves as a warning to this Committee because of the way an industry repeatedly manipulated science to deceive the regulators and the public.

For example, this week the Committee will be making decisions about PFOA persistency but internally, 3M knew PFCs such as PFOA were persistent in 1976. After performing its own studies, the company concluded, “perfluorinated compounds have rarely or never been shown to undergo natural degradation.” They kept this information to themselves and proceeded with production. Publicly, 3M described the product as a, “groundbreaking, invisible wonder.”

The industry has also known since at least 1961 that PFOA is toxic.

DuPont did not disclose to regulators or the public, the results of an in-house studies that found birth defects among its workers’ children and in 2005, they were fined $16.5 million for failing to report the birth-defect findings and other data to the US EPA.

This week, POPRC may hear claims that the chemical has been used for over 50 years with no effect on workers but Dupont’s own internal documents released through the US courts, have shown that is not true – and that the company had documented elevated rates of certain cancers, including kidney cancer in workers and had known that exposed workers suffered more frequently from endocrine disorders.

Many years later, independent studies have confirmed these links and shown that PFOA exposed residents have suffered increased risk of kidney as well as testicular cancers, and women with higher levels of PFOA have higher risk of the endocrine disorder, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS).

In 2004, DuPont was forced to settle a massive class-action covering 80,000 people affected by PFOA contamination of their drinking water, something that the company had covered up since 1984. Importantly, the settlement included the establishment of a health project to collect medical information on this exposed population; 69,000 people took part. After 8 years, based on that extensive health investigation, the C8 Science Panel completed its work concluding likely connections to six diseases including ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, thyroid disease; testicular cancer and kidney cancer.

There are now 1000s of residents pursuing legal action; in fact, there are currently 3,500 personal injury claims against DuPont alone. Earlier this year, in one of the first personal injury cases, DuPont was found responsible for a man’s testicular cancer and ordered to pay $5.1 million in associated damages. Furthermore, the court found Dupont committed actual malice meaning that they had “knowledge that the information was false”.

As the POPRC deliberates on the adverse impacts of PFOA and PFOA related chemicals, you may hear arguments that the human health impacts are still unknown or inconsistent despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary. While POPRC deliberates on the science around this chemical, many more affected residents will be fighting for justice against an industry who lied and deceived and against those who stood by and did nothing.

The POPRC’s year-long process has acknowledged that PFOA-related compounds including fluorotelomer alcohols, fluoropolymers and fluorotelomer-based polymers are responsible for degrading into PFOA, a fact that even 3M acknowledges.

The breakdown of these precursor products has spread PFOA contamination into every aspect of peoples lives from non stick products in the kitchen to dental floss to the sport’s products intended to keep us healthy. The Risk Profile on PFOA must include action on the full suite of PFOA related compounds.

So to conclude, this week the eyes of the world are focused on the deliberations of the POPs Review Committee as never before. We urge the POPs review committee to consider the industry’s track record of deception, to reject the deniers and to reject arguments based on 1 or 2 industry based reviews. We urge you to stay true to the Stockholm Convention’s mandate of protecting human health and the environment of communities against this most toxic of chemicals. As PFOA never breaks down, the decisions made here in Rome this week, will impact on the world’s peoples for centuries to come, so please make them the right ones.”

International and Australian NGOs have expressed their strong opposition to the Minister for Environment, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg, to Orica’s application to export their HCB hazardous waste stockpile for incineration in Finland. Australia is a developed country and should deal with its own POPs (persistent organic pollutants) waste as it has in the past. Australia has the technical expertise and suitable technologies capable of destroying HCB are commercially available. It is possible and feasible to site destruction facilities in Australia. Australia needs a hazardous waste destruction facility that can address the bourgeoning amounts of current POPs waste as well as future POPs waste. Newly listed POPs are present in large quantities in Australian building and electronic wastes requiring environmentally sound destruction. Australia also has an obligation to destroy the waste within national borders, under Basel Convention Article 4.